Climate change is another and unfourtuantly mother nature finds ways to one up mankind on this all the time.

Remember Mt McKinnley exploding? That threw more carbon into the air than mankind itself ever done in its history of supposive existence. Or that other incident eons ago that ended the ice age, where global warming was a good thing.

It seems odd that venus also doesnt have impact craters like earth and almost any other rockey planet has. They hypothized this has venus having a very thin crust and its probably the closest thing to a magma planet in our solar system.

2,539 times more CO2 in the atmosphere and no carbon cycle to capture it!

Everyone wants to help this planet the problem is all the taxes they have planned will be paid by the working and middleclasses in society!(directly or indirectly)

example:

In the uk the central goverment charges z40 will be z70 next year per tonne of landfill, the goverment doesn't have to run the landfill site or pay any of the costs the local council does it just fines them for (legally) dumping!

Now I personally have no control over how much they charge me, my council tax is based upon my house size! No matter how much I dump I have no control over how much I pay! So if I live in a big house or little house there is no incentive to recycle because the 1 tonne I may save a year by recycling hard will be absorbed by everyone and ditto with me being a waster, I get taxed end of story!

Fuel tax!this may seem the fairest sort of tax as it means that the more I use the more I pay! Rubbish! when I was on min wage (just after uni at the only job I could find) I spent 15% of my yearly income on petrol (not the other expenses involved in a car like road tax!) 15% the only place I drove was to work and back (ten miles in a car that did 35MPG on the motorway)! when you consider that income tax in the UK with nat insurance etc is close to 40% of income I was left with 45% then they take 12% for council tax (1 bedroom flat on the lowest possible level) leaving me with 33% (before VAT of 17.5% at the time (of this percentage)) to house, water, light, clothe and feed myself! (oh and public transport was a bus that took three hours as it went to every town within 20 miles first or a train that involved a 6 mile walk! and both costing slightly more than my annual fuel bill)

do you think Barack Obama looks at the price on the fuel meter when he fills up?

Posted - 2009.11.24 18:48:00 -
[34]
Even if this is accurate, and we have a bunch of scientists and other experts changing data so it appears climate change is worse than it is, what would be their ulterior motive? It is clear to see that skepticism has the goal of enabling free exploitation of the environment for monetary gain... but I don't see why anyone would lie about climate change being worse. From the tone of those messages, it seems that they're only tweaking the numbers because the idiots they have to deal with aren't of the intelligence to be able to consider it impartially, which sounds to me perfectly reasonable when dealing for example with Republicans in the US.

Posted - 2009.11.24 21:01:00 -
[35]
Yes...climate change is happening. I don't think there are many people debating that point. I think the main contentious issue is how much of the climate change is a product of man-made influence (I'm sure there is some), and how much is a natural cyclic progression.

As for the people that say "earth is dying" or "we're destroying the earth"....you are idiots. The earth will be just fine....it may eventually become uninhabitable for humans....but the earth itself will refresh itself after we are gone. I hope that puts the tinfoil hat crowd at ease. Humans = dead and Earth = peachy.

Foodpimp

On a side note, if we quit curing all these diseases and let a few billion people bite it....that would certainly go a long way to fixing things here on ole mother earth.

Quote:do you think Barack Obama looks at the price on the fuel meter when he fills up?

You look at it from the outside and think its funny but we have to live with him. But the simple answer to this question is that most politicians do not have a scientific bone in their body. They think they do because they get scientific journals dropped on their desk to read. They read them and believe it as fact, along with the opinionated conclusions.-------------

Quote:do you think Barack Obama looks at the price on the fuel meter when he fills up?

You look at it from the outside and think its funny but we have to live with him. But the simple answer to this question is that most politicians do not have a scientific bone in their body. They think they do because they get scientific journals dropped on their desk to read. They read them and believe it as fact, along with the opinionated conclusions.

I don't think it's funny, just insert rich persons name there!

I dont even think obama is believing journals he will decide which ones are written by choosing funding!

Originally by:hired goonEven if this is accurate, and we have a bunch of scientists and other experts changing data so it appears climate change is worse than it is, what would be their ulterior motive? It is clear to see that skepticism has the goal of enabling free exploitation of the environment for monetary gain... but I don't see why anyone would lie about climate change being worse. From the tone of those messages, it seems that they're only tweaking the numbers because the idiots they have to deal with aren't of the intelligence to be able to consider it impartially, which sounds to me perfectly reasonable when dealing for example with Republicans people in the US just won't go along with them

[post fixed]

Two words: research grants.

Read the documents that the hackers posted. There are at least 10 documents about how to get research grants, how much different groups will pay, how to use personal connections, and how to go about getting grants if you do not have an established reputation. Not scandalous, that that is what drives many of these "scientists," money. For instance, the hacked documents show that they have calculated their success for grants, at one point, one for thing "funding sources" was the EU, applied for 200 grants, and was 52% successful. "Government" grants was a funding source for 92 applications and they had a success rate of 93%. Once these ideologically driven "scientists" get enough public rep, they they go on speaking tours and get 10-50K for an event.

Posted - 2009.11.25 03:10:00 -
[39]
I have stopped arguing and caring about the whole global warming thing due to overpoliticized science and so much conflicting data, and countless variables that could as easily be the cause rather then humanity, though this is beside the point.

If this is true and they fabricated and or altered their evidence with the intent to misslead the public, then in my mind they should have their licenses taken away. I do not like being lied to, and moreover I do not like being lied to with false science, and if this is true they just completely ruined any data they put forth as they breached any trust I may have had.

Just pointing it out, not disagreeing with your argument, as I agree with you.

It's a fact, that nobody can deny. Not anymore atleast. But apparently over here atleast the fact that the earth stopped warming up in 2000 and has been cooling again since 2002 isn't news. The fact that even climate scientists are money lovers isn't too suprising either. Is suprising how far they'll go though.When money talks, morality walks.

Posted - 2009.11.25 08:13:00 -
[43]
The emails is one thing, but the biggest thing in my opinion, is the "diary" of a programmer that for some reason or another, was tasked with recreating a set of calculations based on a dataset. Problem is - and you can read his utter frustration through his 15,000 lines of text (mostly sample outputs). He can't find the original data files. The datafiles he can find do not correlate. There is duplicate data, missing data, and correlations he can not figure out. There is no file naming standard, there is no directory standard, and no back-ups or original data was made. As he is trying to recreate his data and fide files, he finds errors in the original fortran codes, and then worries that the new data he is creating with corrected data, is not fitting his previous results. Its absolutely amazing.

Read this, and understand, that this Team wants to be responsible with how every human lives their lives, based on their computer modeling.

If a few misquoted, misinterpreted lines from personal e-mails are all it takes to convince you that thousands of papers were wrong then..

..then..

yeah whate exactly?

*edit*

I stopped caring about climate change awhile ago - even if there were solid evidence that we are ruining this planet through the climate we still wouldn't be able to do anything about it because humanity just sucks at solving common problems.

And besides, we are already ruining the biodiversity on earth, last I checked there was a hundred percent correlation between the amount of human activity in an area and the decline of biodiversity. More species have gone extinct in the past 100 years than in the 10 million years before that (no source, rough estimate) and we've dont next to nothing about that.

Humanity is a failure as a species, not in the same words that Agent Smith used, but to the same extent definitely. We'll go extinct through our own actions soon enough (in an eyelash, on a geological scale) and then another species can have a go.

Posted - 2009.11.25 12:48:00 -
[46]
My comment on this topic will be taken from C&P.

Proof or STFU

That is just a lol comment considering that all the "e-mails" I have read could very easily have been doctored.

I mean come on what self respecting researcher is going to scew their stats

But seriously, the graphs I am seeing show a drop in temperature right. Well this drop in temerature also coincides with the surge of science in the 70's and 80's that lead to massive regulation on industry due to their massive abuse of the environment and the current massive global warming hysteria. And just maybe the acutal "conservation" that has occured in that short time has also contributed to the drop

Originally by:thisisnotright

Originally by:GariuysBut apparently over here atleast the fact that the earth stopped warming up in 2000 and has been cooling again since 2002 isn't news

Eh? The world is not cooling. Just look at the ice caps and Greenland ffs. I'm suprised that people are willinlgy climbing on board the Glenn Beck crazy train. Poor people. I pity you

If you look at the southern hemisphere you will find that the ice cpas are growing

P.S. I think that all the reporting agencies blow ass I do not even give them the respect of calling them journalists. They are all tabloidists in my opinion. Slaves to the almight [insert currency of your choosing] and TV rating systems

Slade

Originally by:Niccolado StarwalkerPlease go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!

Originally by:GariuysBut apparently over here atleast the fact that the earth stopped warming up in 2000 and has been cooling again since 2002 isn't news

Eh? The world is not cooling. Just look at the ice caps and Greenland ffs. I'm suprised that people are willinlgy climbing on board the Glenn Beck crazy train. Poor people. I pity you

Even the scientists say in their emails, "we can't account for the recent lack of warming and it's a tragedy that we can't". I think that's pretty clear.

But anyway, so what? The argument is about attribution, not whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. Frankly, who gives a crap about that? Weather and climate always changes. The issue is whether it's man's fault, or rather, whether it's the fault of man-made CO2. Frankly, there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case.

Originally by:BurnharderBut anyway, so what? The argument is about attribution, not whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. Frankly, who gives a crap about that? Weather and climate always changes. The issue is whether it's man's fault, or rather, whether it's the fault of man-made CO2. Frankly, there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case.

At the rate at which we are burning fossil fuels and altering the face of the earth, there has to be an effect eventually, and ruling that out for..whatever reason you might have is foolish.

Originally by:SokrateszAt the rate at which we are burning fossil fuels and altering the face of the earth, there has to be an effect eventually, and ruling that out for..whatever reason you might have is foolish.

So what? Do you honestly think we should be "affect neutral"? Change is normal, as is adaptation to that change. Once the Greens have got Co2 locked down, the very basis of industrial civilisation, do you think they will stop there?

Originally by:SokrateszAt the rate at which we are burning fossil fuels and altering the face of the earth, there has to be an effect eventually, and ruling that out for..whatever reason you might have is foolish.

So what? Do you honestly think we should be "affect neutral"? Change is normal, as is adaptation to that change. Once the Greens have got Co2 locked down, the very basis of industrial civilisation, do you think they will stop there?

You are truly remarkable my friend, it must be terrible living in a world where, god forbid, people are trying to be sensible about things.

Your crude misuse of the term 'adaptation' has been duly noted and LOL'd about.

Quote:Guys, take a look at Venus. That's what happens if you have too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

Some perspective please! Venus has around 10% atmospheric Co2, it has no oceans, it's closer to the Sun. It's in no way comparable to Earth in these and other respects. You cannot use it as an example of "what could happen".

Originally by:SokrateszYou are truly remarkable my friend, it must be terrible living in a world where, god forbid, people are trying to be sensible about things.

Your crude misuse of the term 'adaptation' has been duly noted and LOL'd about.

It's interesting that you find it funny. I don't. Let me give you just one example of the damage your Gaian Religion can do: DDT. The Greens managed to get the anti-malaria chemical DDT banned, on scientific advice of course. Decades and millions of Malaria deaths later, it has been unbanned by the world health organisation. Why? The science was wrong. Only 20 - 30 million people died in the meantime who wouldn't have died otherwise.

Notwithstanding the fact that the science of global warming is complete *******s, the unintended consequences of the actions of the tree-hugging do-gooders are real and far more malevolent than any small increase in global temperatures. I'm frankly gobsmacked that you applaud the anti-technocracy, anti-industrial sentiments of this new green religion.

Posted - 2009.11.26 00:43:00 -
[60]
The best sign for a climate change can be found in Great Britain. Never did it have so much wine growing than ever before. And it was not because they did not try. The grapes just did not want to grow here. --

COPYRIGHT NOTICEEVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.